I have it in the back of my mind that roman numerals were designed to be as
uncursive as possible and that this was supposed to reflect the sort of
media on which they put those numbers, be it wax stelae or stone and also
the tools they used so to do. This may of course be an old wive's tale.
But how about notched tally sticks as inconvenient ? Were these used in
medieval european exchequers or were they uniquely english?
Regards
John A.W. Lock
(though cutting notches in books might have made it easier to find them in
the dark!)
----- Original Message -----
From: JULIA BARROW <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: numerological trivia
> The interesting thing is that the non-Arabic bits of Europe did not
> drop Roman numerals like a stone when Arabic numerals became known.
> It took a very long time for their use to spread. In the 12th c. you
> will find Arabic numerals in astronomical and astrological writings
> but the spread of Arabic numerals for other purposes (e.g. numbering
> leaves in books or keeping accounts) only slowly took off in the late
> middle ages and it was much more common for people to use Roman
> numerals for accounts pretty well down to the 18th c., certainly down
> to the 17th. Probably the reason is that Roman numerals, esp. in
> their medieval versions, e.g. xx with iv written above for 80,
I haven't seen this form but I have seen them thus: iiij with xx above;
also occasionally v with C above (not D) which supports your oral idea even
better
... and I have a gut feeling I have seen something similar for dozen. But
where?
> something that Indian/Arabic ones don't, which is to follow
> contemporary speech patterns (4 score; 500 less 3; one hundred
> and thirty four or whatever). Triumph of oral culture over
> mathematical convenience, perhaps.
fractions are nigh impossible in the roman system...
I am reminded of the Domesday Book exemplifications (the de facto base line
for land ownership) in which the Domesday Book script was still being
churned out in the 16th century (and maybe later?) . I think it's a triumph
of bureaucracy. 'Twas ever thus &c
> Julia Barrow
>
>
> Surely the Roman system of numerals was the most awkward, difficult and
> unhelpful system ever invented? Was Europe not well-advised to drop it
> like a stone when the much more sensible Arabic system became
> available? Then why do we argue whether it is right to say MIM or
> MDCCCCLXXXXIX? Both are lunacy incarnate when compared with the
> elegant 1999.
>
> Oriens.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
> or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|